[CryptoParty] communication rules
Hauke Laging
hauke.laging at openpgp-schulungen.de
Fri Jul 19 19:35:01 GMT 2013
Hello,
Am Fr 19.07.2013, 01:38:52 schrieb Samuel Carlisle:
> I politely remind you that it is your choice alone to not be on
> Twitter to join that debate and to see, first hand, this information,
> just as it is your choice not to be on IRC (same applies- the debate
> already happened in two places already).
I don't think that this description is correct. I am not aware of any
invitation or announcement on this list that such a discussion shall take
place at a given time. In that case I would have joined, of course. In other
words: I didn't refuse my participation. But noone can expect me (or anyone)
to just hang around there waiting for some unannounced discussion that might
become important. I have better things to do than that.
Instead you point out comments of somebody who has not written a single email
on this list (until this discussion) since I am on it (about two weeks). This
is not a serious way of working together. The result of the discussion of a
random bunch of people happening to be online at the same time is probably not
representative. How many events and participants do they represent? How many
do those represent who were not involved?
However. I am not going to continue this discussion beyond this email because
I don't want to waste anyone's time. The question does not even affect me
directly. But if someone wants to discuss something in the future on IRC and
wants to use the result of that as an argument here then this discussion
should be announces here a reasonable period in advance.
> Whoever takes money from whoever else... they must choose- just decide
> that for yourself and not on behalf of "us" and don't call the result
> a Cryptoparty please.
What justifies this demand? An IRC discussion?
I asked for clear rules to be signed by everyone. I was told that the handbook
was enough. So I had a look at it. May I quote:
1) "Dont sell out to sponsors for pizza and beer money."
2) "Assume intel agencies send representative to CryptoParties. Acknowledge
their presence at the start of your meeting, ask them to share their crypto
skills."
So the handbook says the opposite of what is thrown as the ultimate argument
against me. Funny.
> The value of money is a question of its target not of its source.
>
> So you are saying that the end justifies the means?
Yes, I do.
> I do not believe
> in that in this case because it would be selling out... sorry.
I can easily accept that. What I cannot easily accept is the approach to
"forbid" others to do that. What I could accept is a requirement to make this
problem public. So if somebody decides for his local event to take money from
a source which others don't like then I would suggest to add a respective
disclaimer to the description of the event, something like:
"This event is financially, personally or with equipment supported by XY. Some
people consider it a problem to cooperate with XY because of [...]. The
majority of the organisers of this event doesn't consider this a problem in
this certain case because [...]. You have been informed, think for yourself."
In this case it would be a very difficult claim to state that this action puts
the label Cryptoparty in danger.
> > Assume the BND itself would teach the public about crypto. Would
> > that be good or bad?
>
> SRSLY? the BND?
"Assume intel agencies send representative to CryptoParties. Acknowledge their
presence at the start of your meeting, ask them to share their crypto
skills."
The NSA has writen SELinux. The BSI has paid for crypto integration for KMail.
> It depends if Microsoft server 2008 "securty feature foobar" or
> Libelle is on the syllabus really now doesn't it? Does the tool being
> taught empower people or enslave them?
Aren't we talking about OSS here?
> -Cryptoparty needs to have a sincere voice and be a movement
> *strictly* by and for the people. If we compromise on that even 1%
> then we have lost integrity and impartiality IMO.
I don't think that this is the point being discussed. I think the point is:
Would this kind of action be a compromise?
> Yes I agree with you and I am very glad that you concluded the same
> way. I am just futher reinforcing to you now that more of the
> community has been discussing this proposal and I am reporting back to
> you with this information.
Thanks. But independently of this special question I strongly ask for getting
the communication process clear in order to avoid something like that in the
future. And I suggest to adapt the handbook to be compatible with this new
policy...
Even if we don't agree: Thanks for the good presentation of the situation and
the arguments.
CU
Hauke
--
☺ http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/
XMPP (mit OTR): gnupg-support at jabber.org
CF51 CB88 7D9A B184 AD50 21F4 DA6B 2836 5A21 B2D0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 572 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://cryptoparty.is/pipermail/global/attachments/20130719/bbbd1e95/attachment.sig>
More information about the global
mailing list